The High Court in Suva has dismissed an application for Constitutional redress submitted by former Government MP Vijendra Prakash. Prakash claimed that his right to a fair trial, as outlined in Section 15 of the 2013 Constitution, was violated. In his application, he named the Chief Registrar as the first respondent, the Attorney General as the second respondent, and the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption as an interested party.
Prakash alleged that his rights were infringed upon by Justice Thushara Kumarage during a ruling in October 2022, which made his ability to present evidence conditional upon waiving his right to remain silent. However, Justice Pita Bulamainavalu ruled that the application was an abuse of process, emphasizing that there were sufficient alternative remedies available under Section 44(4) of the Constitution and Order 18 Rule 18 of the High Court Rules 1988.
In February 2023, Prakash was convicted on charges of providing false information to a public servant and unlawfully obtaining a financial advantage of $33,679. He was sentenced to 36 months in prison, with 28 months to be served in custody and the remaining eight months suspended for five years. Additionally, an appeal made to the Court of Appeal was dismissed earlier this year by Justice Isikeli Mataitoga. Following these legal challenges, Prakash has also been ordered to pay $2,000 to the Attorney General’s Office.
This ruling underscores the legal system’s emphasis on procedural integrity and the upholding of the rule of law. It serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal frameworks and maintaining accountability, which ultimately contributes to the fair administration of justice.
In summary, the court’s decision reflects a commitment to ensuring that individuals face consequences for wrongful actions while also reinforcing the principle that there are established legal pathways for seeking redress. Though the outcome is challenging for Prakash, it reinforces a hopeful narrative around the effectiveness and resilience of the judicial system.
Leave a comment